> [Forwarding from Sally Morris of ALPSP. --Peter Suber, FOS FORUM.]
>
> There is a suggested form of journal author/publisher agreement ('Model
> Grant of Licence'), where the author retains copyright but the
> publisher gets all the rights it needs, on our website
> http://www.alpsp.org/htp_copyrght.htm>
> Sally Morris, Secretary-General
> Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers
> South House, The Street, Clapham, Worthing, West Sussex BN13 3UU, UK

To give credit where credit is due, ALPSP may be ambivalent about the
APPLICATION of their suggested copyright policy, but the FORMULATION of
the policy itself is clearly on the side of the interests of research
and researchers, and it has accordingly been incorporated it in the BOAI
self-archiving FAQ: "What can publishers do to facilitate self-archiving?"
http://www.eprints.org/self-faq/#publishers-do

Also for the record, I realize that these new PostGutenberg realities
are a difficult and sometimes even a livelihood-threatening matter for
peer-reviewed journal publishers, so the ALPSP's ambivalence is
perfectly understandable too.

The pertinent passage is:

"You also retain the right to use your own article (provided you
acknowledge the published original in standard bibliographic
citation form) in the following ways as long as you do not sell it
[OR GIVE IT AWAY] in ways that would conflict DIRECTLY with our
commercial business interests. You are free to use your article...
mounted on your own or your institution's website; [posted to free
public servers of preprints and/or articles in your subject
area]..." http://www.alpsp.org/grantli.pdf

The ambivalence is still reflected in the CAPITALIZED passages, but it
does not matter. If the passage, with or without the captalized or
sqaure-bracketed sub-passages is included in the copyright agreement,
everything is fine; self-archiving can take care of all the rest, and
open access is around the corner.

[Legal sleuths: Save your breath about how the capitalized passages
"could represent potential legal loopholes." They do not; they
represent absolutely nothing except self-soothing superstition, just as
the distinction between institutional and "public" servers represents
absolutely nothing. Adopt the passage, self-archive, and don't give it
another thought!]